1.1 Brief of the Case

1.2 Background of the case

• The petitioner applied for GST registration under the Andhra Pradesh GST Act, 2017 for its business location in Rajamahendravaram.
• The Assistant Commissioner (ST) rejected the application on the ground that neither the petitioner nor its authorized representative was a resident of Andhra Pradesh.
• The petitioner challenged this rejection before the Andhra Pradesh High Court by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

1.3 Key Provisions discussed

• AP GST Act, 2017 — Rules governing GST registration and required conditions (explicit statutory criteria).
• Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India — Right to practice any profession or to carry on any business, trade, or profession

1.4 Petitioner’s Arguments

• There is no provision in the GST statute or rules that requires the applicant or authorized representative to be a resident of the same state where registration is sought.
• Denying registration on this ground is arbitrary and violates the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) to pursue business anywhere in India.

1.5 Respondent’s Arguments

• Registration was legitimately refused because the petitioner and its authorized representative were not residents of Andhra Pradesh and this could pose a risk of tax evasion.
• The apprehension was that monitoring compliance and tax obligations could be difficult without local residency

1.6 Court’s Findings and Analysis

• The apprehension of tax evasion, however genuine, cannot justify refusal of registration unless such a ground is expressly provided under the statute.
• There is no provision in the APGST Act or Rules that imposes residency requirements for either the applicant or the authorized representative.
• GST law aims to create a seamless national economic market and restrictions based on domicile undermine that objective.
• The right to carry on trade and business anywhere within India is protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

1.7 Court’s Decision

• Allowed the writ petition.
• Set aside the Assistant Commissioner's order of rejection dated 04.11.2024.
• Directed the respondents to grant GST registration to the petitioner.
• The Court also noted that the authorities could still monitor the petitioner's GST compliance and returns to guard against evasion, but they cannot refuse registration on the basis of state residency.

1.8 Significance of the Judgment

• Clarifies that GST registration cannot be denied on domicile grounds: Authorities cannot impose residency requirements not specified in the statute.
• Reinforces Article 19(1)(g): Upholds a taxpayer's constitutional right to carry on business anywhere in India.
• Prevents arbitrary tax administration practices: Prevents states from introducing extraneous conditions for GST registration.

Promotes ease of doing business: Ensures a unified market under GST without local barriers.